MikeLigalig.com

Quote from: islander on March 10, 2018, 01:11:49 PM
The Philippines could start with a formal note of protest to Beijing and then play the United Nations card. It could refer the case to the UN Security Council as a "threat to peace." China is a member of the UN Security Council and would veto any such resolution, but the Philippines could transfer the issue to the UN General Assembly under the Uniting for Peace Resolution where China cannot use its veto power.

The Philippines could play this card indefinitely since there are many related issues involved. It could ask the UN to demand that China lift its blockade on Ayungin Shoal, as well as its ban on fishing at Panatag Shoal, etc. This will be a PR battle, forcing China to use its veto in the UN Security Council repeatedly.  The frequent use of the veto will confirm China's isolation in the West Philippine Sea dispute.

Zebra crossing 2 pax...

Zebra pattern

[size=16]Trump's Chaos Theory for the Oval Office is Taking its Toll[/size]


WASHINGTON — For 13 months in the Oval Office, and in an unorthodox business career before that, Donald J. Trump has thrived on chaos, using it as an organizing principle and even a management tool. Now the costs of that chaos are becoming starkly clear in the demoralized staff and policy disarray of a wayward White House.

The dysfunction was on vivid display on Thursday in the president's introduction of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. The previous day, Mr. Trump's chief economic adviser, Gary D. Cohn, warned the chief of staff, John F. Kelly, that he might resign if the president went ahead with the plan, according to people briefed on the discussion. Mr. Cohn, a former Goldman Sachs president, had lobbied fiercely against the measures.

His threat to leave came during a tumultuous week in which Mr. Trump suffered the departure of his closest aide, Hope Hicks, and the effective demotion of his senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was stripped of his top-secret security clearance. Mr. Trump was forced to deny, through an aide, that he was about to fire his national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster.

Mr. Kelly summed up the prevailing mood in the West Wing. "God punished me," he joked of his move from the Department of Homeland Security to the White House during a discussion to mark the department's 15th anniversary.

He he...

In response to questions from reporters about whether it would be practical to arm 700,000 teachers, as Trump has suggested, White House Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah responded on Thursday afternoon: "I think when you have a horrific situation like you had last week, and some other school shootings that we've seen, these horrible tragedies, what we think and don't think is practical can change."

Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was killed in the Parkland shooting, told MSNBC on Thursday that the massacre would have been much worse had teachers been armed.

"You had pandemonium, you had kids running all over, teachers running all over. Everyone was trying to get to a safe place," Guttenberg said. "You would've had a shootout, with all these kids and people running all over. That would not have saved lives. It would have led to further loss of life."


https://www.nbcnews.com/

Even pro-gun educators don't necessarily support Trump's plan. Dr. Joshua Grubbs, an assistant professor of clinical psychology at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, owns multiple guns — but said he couldn't imagine bringing them to class.

"Even under the most ideal conditions, shooting with a handgun is extremely hard. Practically speaking, on a range with ear protection on, at complete peace, that's hard and takes a lot of skills," he said.

More importantly, he said, bringing a gun into class creates an adversarial dynamic.

"You're asking teachers, instead of seeing the best in students, to constantly be on guard for a student that might be a threat," Grubbs said. "It's no longer a safe place for you to learn. It puts the teacher more in a law enforcement role. You relate differently to a teacher than you do to a police officer — and you should relate differently."

Not everyone is opposed to arming schoolteachers: In a Washington Post-ABC News poll out this week, 42 percent of Americans said allowing teachers to carry guns could have deterred the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, last week.

And after the Sandy Hook shooting, about 200 teachers in Utah partook in a free gun training course, led by firearm activists who argued that armed teachers could thwart shooting rampages in their schools. Hundreds more in Butler County, Ohio, signed up for a similar class after the Parkland shooting.

But many prominent figures in education are slamming the idea.

"Educators need to be focused on teaching our students. We need solutions that will keep guns out of the hands of those who want to use them to massacre innocent children and educators. Arming teachers does nothing to prevent that," said Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National Education Association, which represents 3 million educators in the U.S.

Brian Levin, a former officer with the New York Police Department, said in the heat of the moment, it's too easy to misfire. He recalled a time early in his career when he almost shot an unarmed man fleeing a shooting scene.

"Often times when you're having an adrenaline-filled situation, you're not sure who the target is," said Levin, who is now a criminal justice professor at California State University, San Bernardino.

Dr. Amy Klinger, director of programs and co-founder of the Educator's School Safety Network, a nonprofit that supports safer schools, said she found it "ironic and sad" that the only training being discussed for teachers is weapons training.

"How about training in violence prevention, or all of the other threats that schools face, like severe weather, noncustodial parent fights, and bus accidents?" she asked. "I'm thrilled that the president is having this conversation about school safety. But I'm concerned that we're not looking at the really effective options first."

Statistics show that states with stricter gun laws and fewer guns have less overall gun violence than those with more lax laws and more guns. Hemenway, who has done extensive research on guns, said it boils down to access to weapons.

"The evidence is overwhelming, starting at the home. A gun in the home increases the risk that people in the home will die. That's because there's more suicides, more gun accidents, and more homicides," he said.

The experts added that even with proper firearms training, to expect a teacher to be able to shoot down an attacker — and not accidentally injure anyone else — is unrealistic.

"To be trained is not just about shooting. Your heart is beating like crazy, your adrenaline is all over your body, and you have to make a wise decision about what to do," Hemenway said.

Avery Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, called it a "colossally stupid idea."

"If having more guns in more places made Americans safer, then we would have the lowest rates of gun violence in any developed country in the world, and the exact opposite is true," she said, calling the notion that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" a myth.

"So what should we do about reducing airline hijacking? Give all the passengers guns as they walk on?"
"There could be instances of real confusion that would lead to tragedy if we had more guns in more classrooms," Gardiner said. "What about the time the teacher accidentally leaves the gun unlocked in the desk drawer, and it's picked up by a student? Think about the burden on schools to make sure the teachers are safe to carry guns. Who's doing that checking and monitoring and retraining?"

Trump's proposal to arm teachers panned by experts as a 'colossally stupid idea'
by ELIZABETH CHUCK and CORKY SIEMASZKO
FEB 23 2018, 1:57 AM ET





President Donald Trump has proposed a solution to end classroom massacres once and for all: Arm some of America's teachers with concealed weapons, and train them to "immediately fire back if a savage sicko came to a school with bad intentions," he said Thursday.

But gun violence experts, educators, and school safety advocates immediately panned the idea.

"It's a crazy proposal," said Dr. David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at Harvard School of Public Health and an expert on the public health impact of gun violence. Chuckling, he added, "So what should we do about reducing airline hijacking? Give all the passengers guns as they walk on?"

Kini, pwede pood...

An American investment banker was at the pier of a small coastal Mexican village when a small boat with just one fisherman docked. Inside the small boat were several large yellowfin tuna. The American complimented the Mexican on the quality of his fish and asked how long it took to catch them.

The Mexican replied, "only a little while. The American then asked why didn't he stay out longer and catch more fish? The Mexican said he had enough to support his family's immediate needs. The American then asked, "but what do you do with the rest of your time?"

The Mexican fisherman said, "I sleep late, fish a little, play with my children, take siestas with my wife, Maria, stroll into the village each evening where I sip wine, and play guitar with my amigos. I have a full and busy life."

The American scoffed, "I am a Harvard MBA and could help you. You should spend more time fishing and with the proceeds, buy a bigger boat. With the proceeds from the bigger boat, you could buy several boats, eventually you would have a fleet of fishing boats. Instead of selling your catch to a middleman you would sell directly to the processor, eventually opening your own cannery. You would control the product, processing, and distribution. You would need to leave this small coastal fishing village and move to Mexico City, then LA and eventually New York City, where you will run your expanding enterprise."

The Mexican fisherman asked, "But, how long will this all take?"

To which the American replied, "15 – 20 years."

"But what then?" Asked the Mexican.

The American laughed and said, "That's the best part. When the time is right you would announce an IPO and sell your company stock to the public and become very rich, you would make millions!"

"Millions – then what?"

The American said, "Then you would retire. Move to a small coastal fishing village where you would sleep late, fish a little, play with your kids, take siestas with your wife, stroll to the village in the evenings where you could sip wine and play your guitar with your amigos."


https://bemorewithless.com/mexicanfisherman/

Ta-dah!

Kinsa man pood ni...

Henry Greely, a Stanford University law professor who specializes in the implications of biomedical technologies, said the strongest argument he can think of would be the desire of grieving parents to produce a genetic duplicate of a dead child. But he doubts that's a compelling enough reason to undertake the extensive and costly effort needed to get such a procedure approved, at least for "decades and decades."

Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society in Berkeley, California, called it unethical to subject that new child to "the psychological and emotional risks of living under the shadow of its genetic predecessor." Human cloning could also require many women to donate eggs and to serve as surrogates, she said.

At the moment, because of safety concerns, federal regulators in the U.S. would not allow making a human baby by cloning, and international scientific groups also oppose it, said biomedical ethics expert Insoo Hyun of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals condemned the monkey-cloning experiments.

"Cloning is a horror show: a waste of lives, time and money — and the suffering that such experiments cause is unimaginable," PETA Senior Vice President Kathy Guillermo said in a statement.

Mitalipov, noting the Chinese failed to produce healthy babies from adult cells, said he suspects attempts to clone babies from a human adult would also fail. "I don't think it would be advisable to anyone to even think about it," he said.

Jose Cibelli, a scientist at Michigan State University, said it might be technically possible someday, but "criminal" to try now because of the suffering caused by the many lost pregnancies the process entails.

If the procedure became efficient enough in monkeys, he said, society could face "a big ethical dilemma" over whether to adapt it for humans. The key step of transferring DNA might be combined with gene editing to correct genetic disorders in embryos, allowing healthy babies to be born, he said.

Of course, the familiar image of human cloning involves making a copy of someone already born. That might be possible someday, but "I don't think it should be pursued," said researcher Dieter Egli of Columbia University. "I can't think of a strong benefit."

The process is still very inefficient — it took 127 eggs to get the two babies — and so far it has succeeded only by starting with a monkey fetus. The scientists failed to produce healthy babies from an adult monkey, though they are still trying and are awaiting the outcome of some pregnancies. Dolly caused a sensation because she was the first mammal cloned from an adult.

The procedure was technically challenging. Essentially, the Chinese scientists removed the DNA-containing nucleus from monkey eggs and replaced it with DNA from the monkey fetus. These reconstituted eggs grew and divided, finally becoming an early embryo, which was then placed into female monkeys to grow to birth.

The scientists implanted 79 embryos to produce the two babies. Still, the approach succeeded where others had failed. Poo said that was because of improvements in lab techniques and because researchers added two substances that helped reprogram the DNA from the fetus. That let the DNA abandon its job in the fetus, which involves things like helping to make collagen, and take on the new task of creating an entire monkey.

The Chinese researchers said cloning of fetal cells could be combined with gene editing techniques to produce large numbers of monkeys with certain genetic defects that cause disease in people. The animals could then be used to study such diseases and test treatments. The researchers said their initial targets will be Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

In a paper released Wednesday by the journal Cell, he and his colleagues announced that they successfully created two macaques. The female baby monkeys, about 7 and 8 weeks old, are named Zhong Zhong and Hua Hua.

"It's been a long road," said one scientist who tried and failed to make monkeys and was not involved in the new research, Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health & Science University. "Finally, they did it."

Poo said the feat shows that the cloning of humans is theoretically possible. But he said his team has no intention of doing that. Mainstream scientists generally oppose making human babies by cloning, and Poo said society would ban it for ethical reasons.

Instead, he said, the goal is to create lots of genetically identical monkeys for use in medical research, where they would be particularly valuable because they are more like humans than other lab animals such as mice or rats.

MALCOLM RITTER, Associated Press Thu, 25 Jan 3:50 AM GMT+6





NEW YORK (AP) — For the first time, researchers have used the cloning technique that produced Dolly the sheep to create healthy monkeys, bringing science an important step closer to being able to do the same with humans.

Since Dolly's birth in 1996, scientists have cloned nearly two dozen kinds of mammals, including dogs, cats, pigs, cows and polo ponies, and have also created human embryos with this method. But until now, they have been unable to make babies this way in primates, the category that includes monkeys, apes and people.

"The barrier of cloning primate species is now overcome," declared Muming Poo of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Shanghai.

Lost childhood...

The White House announced earlier this week it would end Temporary Protected Status for 200,000 Salvadorans who were allowed to live and work in the US legally after two severe earthquakes hit their home country in 2001.

The Trump administration has also ended TPS for 45,000 Haitians and 2,500 Nicaraguans. The program also covers immigrants from Honduras, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen.

A statement from Raj Shah, a deputy White House press secretary, did not deny that Trump made the comments.

"Like other nations that have merit-based immigration, President Trump is fighting for permanent solutions that make our country stronger by welcoming those who can contribute to our society, grow our economy and assimilate into our great nation," Shah said.

Shah added: "He will always reject temporary, weak and dangerous stopgap measures that threaten the lives of hardworking Americans, and undercut immigrants who seek a better life in the United States through a legal pathway."

Previous reports have quoted Trump as assailing immigrants from Haiti and African countries.

The New York Times reported last year that Trump became enraged at a June meeting over the number of visas awarded to citizens of certain nations, grumbling that 15,000 Haitians who entered the US in the preceding months "all have AIDS" and that the 40,000 Nigerians would never "go back to their huts" in Africa.

Trump: 'Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?'
Michelle Mark
http://www.businessinsider.com/
4h    


President Donald Trump asked why the US was accepting immigrants from "shithole countries," multiple news outlets reported Thursday.

He made the comment during an immigration meeting with a bipartisan group of lawmakers.

President Donald Trump reportedly questioned in a White House meeting on Thursday why the United States should accept immigrants from "shithole countries," referring to Haiti, El Salvador, and African nations.

"Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?" Trump said, according to a Washington Post report citing two sources briefed on the meeting.

Other news outlets quickly confirmed he described the countries with the expletive.

Trump then reportedly suggested the US instead accept immigrants from nations like Norway, whose prime minister he met with on Wednesday.

The comment came during negotiations on immigration with a bipartisan group of lawmakers seeking to resolve the fate of a group of young immigrants whose protection from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program is being phased out by the Trump administration.

The lawmakers had suggested that a US visa lottery program that provides roughly 50,000 visas annually to citizens of countries with historically low rates of immigration to the US be partially reallocated to immigrants already living in the US whose protections under a humanitarian program the Trump administration is terminating.

The discussion of whether this will resonate with Trump's base then is deeply cynical and totally misses the point. There need to be things that are right and things that are wrong, things that we can all agree we should do or not do. Whether or not these things have some political resonance with some group of people is immaterial.

We are talking about the President of the United States here! Not some fringe talk radio host? Not some blogger. The single most powerful person in the country. The symbol of the United States to the rest of the world.

Whether or not you voted for Trump, whether or not you still support him, whether or not you think this "shithole" comment will land well with his base, you need to acknowledge that voicing views like these is simply wrong. It is, quite literally, anti-American. Period. Full Stop.

These sorts of noxious views are a feature not a glitch for Donald Trump.

Everything in his history as a candidate and as President screams for that conclusion.

For every "bill of love" pronouncement Trump makes, there are double-digit times in which he has said things -- publicly and privately -- that any reasonable person would describe as racially tinged at best and flat-out racist at worst.

Let me remind you in case you have forgotten: This is the President of the United States we are talking about.

The President of ALL 300 million people -- not just the ones who voted for Trump and who might respond well to his "shithole" comments. The President of a country literally built on the idea of a melting pot of immigrants.

Let's not make any mistake here: What was being discussed in the meeting in which Trump called Haiti and El Salvador "shithole countries" was not illegal immigration.

This was a proposal to end the visa lottery, which Trump has repeatedly falsely suggested leads to other countries gaming the system to send the US their worst people, and replace it with affording a group of countries Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

Nor should we dismiss this sentiment as a one off by Trump. Remember this June 2016 meeting, first reported by The New York Times, in which Trump was angrily decrying the fact that lots of immigrants from what he believed were less-desirable countries were still entering the country.

The Times writes:

"Haiti had sent 15,000 people. They 'all have AIDS,' [Trump] grumbled, according to one person who attended the meeting and another person who was briefed about it by a different person who was there.
Forty thousand had come from Nigeria, Mr. Trump added. Once they had seen the United States, they would never 'go back to their huts' in Africa, recalled the two officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive conversation in the Oval Office."

This is not only a President of the United States voicing racist sentiment in front of a group of people. It is also doubling down on those sentiments -- proudly! -- because it might advance his political power among his base.

This is -- much like Charlottesville -- an abdication of the moral authority of the presidency, but it's more than that: It's saying, quite simply, that saying racist stuff is a-OK as long as it works politically.

There are things that are -- or should be -- beyond politics. The most important of those things is the belief that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

It's right there in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. And, "we believe these truths to be self evident" because, well, they are. The progress to a more perfect union hasn't always honored this pledge as it should.

But this is 2018. Can't we agree that discriminating against people based on what they look like -- or what country they might come from -- is wrong?

Apparently not, according to President Trump.

Make no mistake: This is the lowest ebb of a presidency defined by a series of low ebbs and defining of the presidency downward. Yes, lower than Trump's comments about Mexico sending us "rapists" and "criminals."

Lower than questioning Sen. John McCain's military service. Lower than his impugning of a judge because of his Mexican heritage. Lower than his questioning the motives of a Gold Star family.

Lower than the 2,000 mistruths and outright falsehoods he has said since becoming President.

Lower than his racially-tinged attacks on the anthem protests by NFL players.

Lower even than his "both sides" argument in the wake of white supremacist violence against peaceful protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia.

In fact, in a lengthy statement from White House spokesman Raj Shah, the administration seemed to even defend the sentiment.

"Certain Washington politicians choose to fight for foreign countries, but President Trump will always fight for the American people," said Shah.

But it gets even worse. Asked about the "shithole" comments, a White House official told CNN's Kaitlan Collins this:

"The President's 'shithole' remark is being received much differently inside of the White House than it is outside of it. Though this might enrage Washington, staffers predict the comment will resonate with his base, much like his attacks on NFL players who kneel during the National Anthem did not alienate it."

Stop. Read that again. Here's what it means: The President's voicing of a racist remark about the sorts of people whom we are letting into the country is actually a good thing because people who like Trump will agree with him.

Trump's 'shithole' comment is his new rock bottom
Chris Cillizza
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large
Updated 2358 GMT (0758 HKT) January 11, 2018





(CNN)On Thursday, in a meeting with a senators and House members on immigration, the President of the United States, asked this: "Why do we want all these people from 'shithole countries' coming here?"

Yes, he said "shithole countries" -- apparently in reference to the fact that immigrants from places like El Salvador, Haiti and Africa were being protected in a potential bipartisan deal to preserve the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and secure funding for border security.

What's even more appalling is that the White House didn't even try to deny that Trump used that slur, which was first reported in The Washington Post.